How has Australia's attitudes and reasons for war changed since World War 1?

Answer 1

From my belief Australian attitudes have changed only alittle from the WW1 but the reasons have changed greatly, as the attitude and reason for going to WW1 was the one and same to help save the "Mother Country", as the majority of people in Australia at that time had English background or if not were in fact English. Also the attitudes of australians back then was of mateship, so if my mate is going to war then i will go too, to help him and protect him. This attitude is still there today as will always be, and the treaty's and packs we made many a years ago now still in our eyes as a nation are still valid and if that great war happens all over again we as a nation would stand up together again and fight side by side with any allied nation who calls for us.

Answer 2

Yes they felt stronger and prouder as a Nation and felt more independent from their old Colonial master Great Britain. Australians also developed an anti-British attitude after the Gallipoli Campaign, believing that many of the mess-ups were due to British incompetance, in particular The Attack on the Nek as shown in the movie Gallipoli.

Answer 3

Arguably, World War I was a "turning point" in redefining Australian identity: prior to this, in general, Australians regarded themselves as Britons in the Southern Hemisphere. There was an anti-British strain in the mentality of some Australians (mainly those of Irish extraction), but they were untypical of the majority. Australia became a self-governing "Dominion" of the Empire in 1901, but essentially most Australians still saw themselves as British people who just happened to be living a long way from "The Mother Country", rather than members of another nation.

This partly explains why the Australian Parliament had no hesitation in coming to Britain's aid in both world wars: something for which, incidentally, most British people were (and are!) extremely grateful. There are numerous memorials to the Australian dead of the two world wars in many parts of Britain, notably in London. To this day, Australian troops regularly mount ceremonial guards at Buckingham Palace & elsewhere - a rare privilege accorded them on account of their special place in British esteem & affection - public & official.

The disastrous Gallipoli Campaign, 1915, however, did result in a sea change in many Australians' self-perception. Many believed they were misused by incompetent British generals who were too ready to take advantage of their aggressive fighting spirit without regard for the casualties incurred. There developed a sense that the fine Australian (and New Zealand) troops had been ill used by cynical, patronising, upper class Brits: this sense of grievance, plus the close bonds formed in combat during a particularly nasty (even by WW I standards!) campaign, resulted in a new sense of distinct "Australianness" (often defined by the term "mateship") different from the more hierarchical, class conscious, tradition bound Britons. This partly explains why "Anzac Day" (commemorating, in particular, the sacrifices of the Australian & New Zealand Army Corps at Gallipoli) remains such an important event in the Australian national calendar.

As with so many things relating to national identity, some Australian views on Gallipoli are ill founded: yes, generalship was largely inept, but many of the actions in which the Anzacs took such high casualties were, in fact, planned/ directed by Australian generals. Popular films (eg Peter Weir's "Gallipoli") convey a sense that only the Anzacs did any serious fighting/ took heavy casualties at Gallipoli, whilst the effete, useless, patronising "Poms" sat around drinking tea. In fact, the British & French (it should not be forgotten!) provided most of the forces at Gallipoli, & suffered far more losses than the Anzacs. Some British units (notably the Lancashire Fusiliers) sustained over 90% casualties on day one - before the Anzacs had landed.

However, in such matters, popular perception overwhelms hard fact. Subsequent service by Anzac forces elsewhere tended to reinforce this sense that Aussies were ill used/ taken for granted by British commanders. On the Western Front, for example, Australian units were often used as "shock troops" leading major attacks. But then so too were many others - Canadian, Indian, S African, and British. In truth, the best formations available were used to lead assaults, irrespective of nationality, and because Anzac forces had a deservedly high reputation, they often "got the call", but no more so than certain British, Canadian or other units.

After WW I, although many Australians had a new sense of a distinct identity, things continued pretty much as before. What really changed attitudes was WW2, & the consequent realisation that Australia's future strategic, economic, & defence needs were more likely to be determined by alignment with the USA, & relations with nations in Asia/ the Pacific, rather than by old imperial & cultural ties with "The Mother Country". It's no coincidence, for example, that post WW2 Australia abandoned the £ Sterling & switched its currency to the $ Australian.

That stated, it's worth remembering that until well into the 1970s the Australian Government maintained a "White Australia" policy, restricting incomers from Asia & actively promoting emigration from Britain to Australia. Events in Asia (eg post '45 explosion of Japanese economic power; the emergence of the Pacific Rim "Tiger Economies"; involvement in the Vietnam War); Britain joining the EEC/ EU, 1973, & consequent economic impact on Australia; changing social attitudes from the 1960s onwards, plus increasing numbers of non British/ Irish immigrants arriving in Australia, have led cumulatively to a very strong sense of Australian identity that is far removed from the essentially British character of the first settlements & the colonial era.

Australia retains the British Monarch as Head of State: this has largely been a matter of political convenience, & has helped sustain cultural connections with the "old country". It should not be forgotten that even today, over half of Australians still have living relatives in the UK, & Britain remains one of the, if not the, largest sources of new arrivals. Australia is a leading member - many would say a key member - of the British Commonwealth. However, IMO, it is likely that Australia will one day soon become a republic. The writing is on the wall, & for the upcoming generation of Australians the overwhelming feeling is that Australia should have a distinct head of state who is "one of our own" & chosen by Australians. When this happens (and most sane people, including Queen Elizabeth II, accept that it will!) it will, in a sense, represent the completion of a process of defining a distinct Australian identity that really started during WWI.

Answer 4

the attitudes change

Dramatically tewards the end of the war.